Archive of entries posted on January 2011

According to the U.N. weather agency — which we can only guess is filled with scientists… probably ones that hate Jews — 2010 tied for Warmest. Year. Ever. It was almost one whole degree Fahrenheit higher than the average. So like if it should have been 65 degrees out, it was instead 66. This will kill all life on earth starting with baby polar bears.

So what do we do? We all need to live in huts and stuff like it’s medieval times. The world will be made up of loosely knit together states run by warlords who will conquer their enemies and make sure we’re not using the wrong light bulbs. And anyone who tries to drive a car will be burned as a witch. This will keep carbon from getting into the air. Instead, it will stay on the ground and we’ll be able to gather it up and fire it into space so it never bothers us again. Then we continue riding horses and hunting with spears until the temperature gets back down to 65.

Hawaii governor says he has proof Obama was born in Hawaii — he just can produce that proof. I’m sure this will be seized on by the usual suspects who have been constantly e-mailing me for years now of every new bit of news on Obama’s birth certificate. While we conservatives are busy in huge battles about Obamacare and the debt, it’s nice to get a breathless e-mail about how if you parse a statement someone made twenty years go a certain, it kinda sounds like they’re saying Obama was born in Kenya.

Yeah, I never got the obsession with this stuff. In the least, we’re pretty sure Obama was born on earth and he seems to speak English pretty well… as long as it’s written down for him phonetically. Then again, in some proof of his foreignness, he does run away screaming from the sight of an apple pie. But in his defense, he runs away screaming from lots of things.

So of the commonly named 2012 GOP candidates so far, who is your pick? I’m still hoping we go with my unnamed Republican idea — mysterious conservative Republican in a wrestling mask. I’m not sure if Constitutionally we can elect a president that no one knows who he is, but people don’t care that much about that sort of thing.

A British weapons manufacture is working on an invisible tank. This is a great idea. Once we have them, here’s what we do: We announce we’re leaving the Middle East. We’ll be all like, “We have to get out of here. Muslim terrorists are too tough.” So we head away and all the terrorists will be like, “Yay! We defeated the infidels!” But unbeknownst to them we left the country filled with invisible tanks! As soon as the terrorists start celebrating — BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! (that’s the sound of big tank guns).

Our military should keep working on more and more hideable weapons, like mortars disguised as goats and jeeps disguised as rocks and dinosaurs with rocket launchers on them disguised as trees. Then the enemy will never know for certain if America has invaded or not. He could just be paranoid… or he could be surrounded with invisible tanks!

Yeah, invisible tanks could be pretty useful. I’ll have to add that to things that could lead to a peaceful world along with nuking the moon.

The House voted 245-189 to repeal Obamacare. That’s three Democrats joining all the Republicans, making the repeal already more bipartisan than the passage. Now it’s on to the Senate where Democrats will try to keep whether or not they want repealing the super-popular Obamacare coming to a vote.

This is neat because it gets Democrats having to argue the advantages of Obamacare which only ever gets people trusting them less. Like the argument that creating a giant new government program is going to save money. That’s like someone arguing stuffing his face with cake will make him less fat (Michael Moore commonly makes both those arguments). And then there are their Constitutional arguments for Obamacare which only better demonstrates Democrats don’t understand much about the Constitution. For some reason, Democrats trying to come up with Constitutional arguments for their bills reminds me of how dictators these days feel the need to have sham elections.

Anyway, the repeal isn’t going to happen straight like this when Democrats have a majority in the Senate and have the veto power of the presidency, but both of those could change in 2012. Then it’s repeal time, and it will be awesome. All that political capital the Democrats expended, and it will be all for nothing. It will be even better than the Democrats never passing Obamacare in the first place. It’s like if you never not got a kid a toy he wanted versus getting him the toy and then smashing it in front of him before he gets to play with it. If you’ve ever done that, the kid is much sadder in the latter scenario.

And once we get rid of Obamacare, we can pretend these four years never happened and move on to prosperity. The prosperous decades of the last century were the 20s, 50s, and 80s. Going by that pattern, we’re kind of due in the 10s.

Looking at the left’s reaction to Lieberman, you’d think it was Emmanuel Goldstein who was retiring.

Are there really people who watch Hardball because of how bright and astute they think Chris Matthews is?

So repeal of Obamacare already more bipartisan than passage?

Johnathan Coulton’s “You Ruined Everything” is a great song describing the transition to parenthood. Your old self gets smashed apart pretty quickly when you get kids, though I feel I still have a bit to go. Only way to get stronger.

Quantum physicists come out with weird new claims all the time, but people don’t seem to give it much scrutiny. I guess because it’s not like global warming where they’re trying to pass laws or like evolution where there is religious controversy, no one really cares even though it’s the most illogical science of all. Quantum physicists will be like, “We found out that quantum particles are actually tiny magic gorillas that can travel through time and space.” And everyone will be like, “Neat!”

I guess it’s up to me to call scientists on this. Hey, quantum physicists, I know you’re just making this all up. You say have all this neat stuff like teleportation, but there’s always some loophole that makes sure we can never pass information faster than the speed of light. It’s like that guy from the movie Mystery Men who could only turn invisible when people weren’t looking. And that’s because you’re making it up. So get me one of this magic quantum computers you say you’re working and use it to break public key encryption, or just shut up and admit you’re frauds.

So Herman Cain has announced a presidential exploratory committee, but I don’t really know anything about him and it’s been a long time since I last ate at Godfather’s Pizza. Still, here’s him arguing health care with Bill Clinton back in 1994 and he seems pretty smart. Plus, with the economy most likely to be the big focus still in 2012, a candidate who really knows business would be a plus.

But a president named Herman? Come on. We got to get him a cooler name like Axel, Rock, or Jerry. Or we could just call him Cain which is both cool and a little evil sounding (good for a Republican).

And then there is the issue that he has a mustache. When was the last time we had a president with facial hair? Taft?

Still, the usual names being floated so far for 2012 have been a little lackluster (“Everybody loves Huckabee!”), so I guess he’s worth paying attention to. As with all expectations about political candidates, though, prepare to be disappointed.

Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe have written an oped in the WSJ listing $3 trillion in cuts from the federal government. That’s a good start, but it does seem like it would be political suicide because you’d be taking away so many people’s shares of other people’s money. I have a solution: Don’t give those people a vote on it.

I know that’s undemocratic, but I don’t know where we got this idea that we can be democratic with other people’s money. The people who own the money should just be able to say, “I’ve decided to keep that money and spend it myself.” And then the entitlement would go away because there is no money for it. I know it was just one of Harry Reid’s brain delusions when he called taxation voluntary, but wouldn’t that be nice if it were true. Then the government would come to us and say, “We’d like money for poor people.” And I’d say, “No, you’re horribly inefficient with money. I’m giving to other charities.” And then they’d come back and say, “We’d like to build giant robots to crush terrorists.” And I’d say, “Let me find my check book.”

Think of that. Taxpayers would be someone the government would have to argue with individually to get our money instead of being piñatas they just keep whacking. But then, you might say, the government would have so little money it could hardly do anything. To which I’d say, “Yeah.”

CNN’s John King (I think that’s a real person, but I’m not sure) said this week that people shouldn’t say “crosshairs”:

My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language.

So, in case you didn’t know, “crosshairs” is the new “n-word.” Or maybe it’s the new “c-word.”

I’m assuming it’s part of the whole “blame Palin” thing. I suppose it could be because of the “cross” part of the word, but I think it’s part of the “blame Palin” thing. Maybe both.

But, I suppose that if now the media heads are getting all up in arms … so to speak … about the use of gun-related imagery and speech, then banning “crosshairs” is just the beginning. There are more things that you won’t be able to say or do:

PRODUCTION NOTES:
#1: When creating lolterizt! pictures, please caption with either black or white text, as colors like red and yellow tend to blur badly when I compress the images.

#2: Standard image size for these posts is 350px wide by whatever high. If you can have your images 350px wide before you caption them, I won’t end up shrinking your captions into illegibility when I re-size the images.

Send your submissions to lolterizt@gmail.com and – if they aren’t obscene (IMAO is a PG-13 site) and don’t suck too terribly bad – I’ll post them for you. Remember to include your name (and blog URL, if applicable) so I know who to thank.

So 35% of people — and 56% of Democrats — think Palin’s map had something to do with the Tuscon shooting. This is just as dumb as any birther nonsense but don’t expect it to get much press. Still, I always wonder with these polls where you have a significant number of people say Obama is a Muslim or half of Democrats say they think Bush was behind or knew about 9/11 is how many people just pick what they consider the negative response when polled on a politician they don’t like. We really need someone to poll something like, “The goal of Palin is to murder everybody and eat their faces. Yes/no?” and “Obama is a dark wizard. Yes/no?” to see how much is just pure politics and not real belief.

There’s talk again about reviving the assault weapon ban. Of course, what gun banners consider an assault weapon is pretty different from the traditional definition. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that the people who came up with the assault weapons ban don’t know much about guns.

Basically, in the assault weapons ban, a gun is an “assault weapon” if it has two or more of these attributes:

* Looks cool or has a cool name.

* Fires a bullet every time the trigger is pulled instead of every other time.

* Can blow someone’s head clean off with a single shot.

* Has a shoulder strap of some sort that could be used to strangle someone.

* Makes loud noise.

* Has a non-Nerf rifle butt that would hurt if you hit someone with it.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And He did despair, for in His omniscience, He did know that His creations had but three-fifths of the splendor of that which would be IMAO."
-No One of Consequence

"A blogger with a sense of humor."
-Some Woman on MSNBC

"It was something of great contentment getting to your site this morning."
-A Spam Comment

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.